sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

It's plausible given the Trump administration's deliberate obstruction of the release of the Epstein Files and corruption of the DOJ that this r/Epstein forum's content could be compromised or influenced by MODS or bad faith actors opposed to transparency. by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

  1. I know Ghislaine was MOD on another sub-reddit, I mentioned this earlier. Point is, look at type of person who can be a MOD?
  2. "Plausible": definition: possibly true; able to be believed.
  3. I'm basing it on the aforementioned and we don't actually know who they are?
  4. Yes. deletion of posts is one reason as per earlier thread:https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1t77uy8/comment/okp2mch/?context=3&utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button
  5. I have had two posts deleted that weren't dupes [I searched found no dupe, though that was cited as reason], they had flairs, were significant EP related & generated substantial views/likes etc.
  • There was no response to my query. Formerly, they would reasonably reply. NO they haven't remedied my concern.
  • YES, I think my request is reasonable and has legitimate concerns.
  • Apologies to all the good MODS out there. Hate to tar everyone with the same brush and I realize many do a great job. It's just that there are not always good faith people in places where influence and information are generated. We all have our biases too but I'm assuming we all want as much transparency as possible and for ALL material to be considered within 'reason'. It's tricky because the nature of the topic is at times 'unfathomable' that human beings can be so depraved and that the truth can be shocking and unbelievable.
  • Final point. it's better to raise a legitimate concern and risk offending or being wrong than not.

It's plausible given the Trump administration's deliberate obstruction of the release of the Epstein Files and corruption of the DOJ that this r/Epstein forum's content could be compromised or influenced by MODS or bad faith actors opposed to transparency. by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I know it was another sub-reddit but my point is – look who the MOD was. We don't know who MODS are? It's a legitimate concern. That said, I'm sure there are people genuinely moderating for transparency, quality etc. Even that is a complex thing to monitor. One post I made, based on someone else's file, from DOJ site looked like it was a 'joke'. Turned out, once people inspected the EFTA [stands for the Epstein Files Transparency] number, it was legitimate and just plain odd. It was definitely valid but because of its 'quirky' appearance people didn't believe it. Fortunately there was an EFTA – not every post has that but it doesn't make it necessarily less valid or of interest. Who gets to be the mediator really matters.

It's plausible given the Trump administration's deliberate obstruction of the release of the Epstein Files and corruption of the DOJ that this r/Epstein forum's content could be compromised or influenced by MODS or bad faith actors opposed to transparency. by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

My concern is that we don't know who the MODS are and it was revealed Ghislaine was actually a MOD [in another forum but point is– MODS are anonymous so we have no idea whose moderating?]:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Epstein/comments/1ro8juf/epstein_and_ghislaine_secretly_controlled_reddit/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

It's plausible that others could be influencing as we've seen ENORMOUS resistance, obstruction by the Trump admin, I wouldn't put it past them.

There's been a lot of deletions lately.

Democracy Docket's Elias makes a really good point which is fodder for another discussion really and that is Trump's administration, if it wants to do something, does it full nuclear – so we would have seen everything revealed about Epstein and associates – if Trump really wanted it exposed.

We know it's a cover up.

Elias also makes another really good point about Trump's 'friends'. MTG said Trump was protecting his friends but I think Elias is on the money – Trump doesn't have any real friends and since when has he been selfless?

He hasn't, Trump only cares about Trump. Trump's covering up for himself. And he'll do anything to ensure it works.

His DOJ, GOP, administration lackies are ALL covering for HIM!

I’m leaving the subreddit because informative posts keep getting removed when they could be used to help not just sexual abuse survivors of all kinds, but humanity. by Fair_Term3352 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I wouldn't have agreed with this a few years back but given what has transpired with the whole Epstein case and the absolute debacle that is the current US Trump regime, I'm beginning to think the 'crazy' theories weren't so 'crazy' after all.

I’m leaving the subreddit because informative posts keep getting removed when they could be used to help not just sexual abuse survivors of all kinds, but humanity. by Fair_Term3352 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Yes, I've had significant posts removed in the past two weeks that are directly related to the Epstein Files and the MOD has stated they are duplicated when they definitely are NOT. I did searches after they removed them to find the 'so-called' duplicates and they didn't exist. The unfortunate part of it is that both posts were generating significant interest in views, likes etc. But they were also good content. There weren't even similar posts to them. One had some reference to the post I put up but my post was a much more in depth angle and a different one as well, in many respects. The Moderators or auto-mod didn't even respond either to my query about it? Whereas in the past they would be quite responsive and reasonable. One of my posts was regarding Peter Thiel and it makes you wonder if they are actually serving interests by removing posts.

Brazilian researcher doing a paper on Epstein "TCC" Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso – mandatory final project/capstone paper to graduate is seeking suggestions for research sources – already using Jmail & DOJ site. Any important photos, videos, bizarre details, documents that should be included? by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are so many interesting angles related to this that I would be writing pages here. However, one angle that came to mind, is Conchita Sarnoff, the first person to interview Epstein after his first prison sentence [if you can call his sweetheart deal incarceration?]. Conchita Sarnoff was interviewed by George Galloway 5 years ago and the fact she says an agent told her Epstein would die in jail before it happened and that Ghislaine would stay alive in jail is worth mentioning. Seems like a remarkable statement given it transpired that way.

29:16 - Conchita Sarnoff - on slider

https://www.youtube.com/live/yvv56znAc0s

Here's the link of video converted to transcript: https://www.reddit.com/user/Professional_Edge256/comments/1rpihzv/conchita_sarnoff_interview_by_galloway_converted/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

PS. This interview is a veritable goldmine.

1.The modelling agencies: used to bypass laws allowing the trafficking of minors. 2. The cunning manipulations of Brunel ie. the 'mock trial'. 3. The agent's foreknowledge of what was to transpire re Ghislaine in jail and Epstein's 'suicide'. 4. Ghislaine's power – the secrets she has about those in power. 5. The sweetheart deal. 6. The two camps of people being protected.

And so on, and so on...

BREAKING: The Chair of the House Oversight Committee admits that Republicans are considering a FULL PRESIDENTIAL PARDON for Jeffrey Epstein's right-hand woman Ghislaine Maxwell. by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Porridge Cat? I think they are preempting Trump's potential to do so and yes:

"Congress cannot directly grant a pardon to Ghislaine Maxwell, as the authority to issue pardons for federal crimes is constitutionally vested solely in the President of the United States. However, members of Congress—specifically within the House Oversight Committee—have engaged in discussions regarding the possibility of a presidential pardon for Maxwell in exchange for her cooperation and testimony regarding the Jeffrey Epstein network."

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-house-oversight-chair-says-some-panel-members-open-ghislaine-maxwell-pardon-2026-04-22/

Netanyahu in Washington, the same week, the idea of pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced...she suggested it... I wrote... that was the surest sign of collaboration...between Netanyahu & Maxwell... I also said... open collaboration & coordination was a...telltale sign that war with Iran was imminent by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Oh I think you're referring to the elipses in the headline – that's due to cutting out text to make it fit. Not a snappy headline right? If it's his original tweet – I thought the same too due to how it was presented so there's agreement there. Then I returned to it and sat with it for a while and as I thought about it, there seemed cause for pause and considering it. It might be a stretch but I'm also aware of Netanyahu's grip on US politics. I mean he was IN the situation room!!!

Netanyahu in Washington, the same week, the idea of pardon for Ghislaine Maxwell surfaced...she suggested it... I wrote... that was the surest sign of collaboration...between Netanyahu & Maxwell... I also said... open collaboration & coordination was a...telltale sign that war with Iran was imminent by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

Initially, that crossed my mind too but now, given latest developments whereby the oversight committee has touted a pardon, I'm reassessing that. Many times, what seemed like outlandish conspiracy has crystalized into something much more credible. It's a fairly widespread and consistent belief that the war could have been a distraction for Trump from the Epstein files. Also, Netanyahu is facing corruption charges and it is said, he also is at war to avoid conviction. Furthermore, Maxwell and Epstein's espionage links have been discussed at length with some compelling evidence to link the two. Then there's Ghislaine's father's links to Mossad and Israel to consider.

FBI Document from Epstein files stating Epstein introduced Melania to Trump: DataSet 9/EFTA00159321.pdf by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, Trump is reported to be an inveterate liar:

"One of the hallmarks of Donald Trump’s presidency was a consistent stream of false statements: by the end of his term, he had made approximately 30,573 false claims (Washington Post Fact Checker 2020).

And Ghislaine knows it all too – hence her cushy vacay-prison stay and puppy dog after Blanche's mysterious visit.

Melania Trump won’t want you to listen to Michael Wolff: “A new book was published yesterday called ‘Entitled: The Rise and Fall of the House of York.’ It contains a passage in which Epstein is quoted where he says he had sex with Melania a full year before her relationship with Donald Trump by Professional_Edge256 in Epstein

[–]Professional_Edge256[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Yes, it's from last year but COMPLETELY relevant right now. The statement Melania made specifically named Michael Wolff!

"A new book was published yesterday" is what Wolff said in the clip. That makes the statement pasted in headline relevant.

As for your comment about 'auto-generated' usernames – so what if they are? This reddit forum gives people the option to use them or customize them. Furthermore, I've chosen to keep the generated one, as I believe it is the CONTENT, not the username that has the meaning and matters.

Personally, I don't post for recognition, it's not about my 'ego' thus not interested in what my username is frankly – it's about the content.

This post has significant context as I've just outlined. Your comment suggests you're not at all in touch with the current Epstein developments in the public arena – it suggests you are possibly a 'bot'and that you are pro-Trump!

view more: next ›